Jump to content
The World News Media

JW.org Says Apostates are "Mentally Diseased"


Jack Ryan

Recommended Posts

  • Member
12 minutes ago, Tom Henry said:

Anyone that misleads by the teaching of Christ and God’s words is mentally diseased, not just apostates.

This is probably true (up to a point). I think of the anti-God books of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, although I have no idea if these persons were ever religious. They are "apostate" if they left a ideology of faith and have disowned that ideology. Although I haven't read the books, I understand they are based on very simplistic argumentation that doesn't even try to understand scripture before trying to make fun of it.

But if we take your definition too far we would have to include men like Brother(s) Russell, Rutherford, Fred Franz, Ray Franz, and even David Splane, and many others. Every time there is an adjusted belief, it means that the previous belief is now considered to have been misleading. For proof of that, what would we think of someone who still tries to deliberately teach the previous teaching before it was adjusted? We would have to admit that the person was deliberately misleading away from the teaching of God and Christ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Views 13.3k
  • Replies 176
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

First of all, before I begin answering, I wanted to say that I have long expected that any JWs who go online to defend their views publicly will see more and more of what is beginning to happen here.

The original post states that "JW.org Says "Apostates are Mentally Diseased." Whilst true, what is ommitted is that JW.org  is reflecting the Bible's view. Apart from what has already been quoted

Yes. I wrote up a post on this at the time and included how other translations handled the verse. An excerpt:   (from https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2019/01/who-is-mentally-diseased.html ) “Mor

Posted Images

  • Guest
Guest Tom Henry
32 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

But if we take your definition too far we would have to include men like Brother(s) Russell, Rutherford, Fred Franz, Ray Franz, and even David Splane, and many others. Every time there is an adjusted belief, it means that the previous belief is now considered to have been misleading.

I would have to disagree with this assessment. There is a difference when something gets revised for a better and simpler understanding. The founders of the Bible Students were in their infancy. Their works were newly found truth to a better bible understanding. Nothing misleading about that. I would agree, before the SBA, Christendom did have false teaching that are still taught today by accepting the early church fathers understanding of scripture.

David Splane doesn't cause anyone to view scripture differently other than how Jesus taught it. That is the point.

Do you believe, revision to be a bad thing? Why would anyone want to stay stale with their understanding

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
2 hours ago, Tom Henry said:

Do you believe, revision to be a bad thing? Why would anyone want to stay stale with their understanding

No Allen....I mean Tom. Revision is a good thing. The problem is when we state something as fact one year, and then change it the next. One thing is building on an idea, pretty much the way technology and the medical field develop, but another is completely changing ones mind. The equivalent is maybe what psychologists do, they seem to change their minds, one time they say it's better to let a child do what it wants, and then when negative results are reaped, they say it's better to discipline a child. A kind of trial and error approach. Similarly, when what JW's teach does not work out, then we try the next "theory". Think generation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
2 hours ago, Tom Henry said:

Do you believe, revision to be a bad thing? Why would anyone want to stay stale with their understanding

Revision is a great thing if we are revising something that was wrong before. Otherwise, there is nothing stale about the original most basic understanding of the Scriptures. Even the most basic message about how Christ Jesus fits into Jehovah's purpose is exciting, comforting, wonderful, and never needed anything to be added or removed from it.

(Revelation 22:18) . . .“I am bearing witness to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone makes an addition to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this scroll;

(2 John 9) 9 Everyone who pushes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God. The one who does remain in this teaching is the one who has both the Father and the Son.

(Philippians 4:9) 9 The things that you learned as well as accepted and heard and saw in connection with me, practice these, and the God of peace will be with you.

(Colossians 1:23) . . .not being shifted away from the hope of that good news that you heard and that was preached in all creation under heaven. . . .

(1 Thessalonians 2:13) 13 Indeed, that is why we also thank God unceasingly, because when you received God’s word, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but, just as it truthfully is, as the word of God, which is also at work in you believers.

(2 Timothy 1:13, 14) 13 Keep holding to the standard of wholesome words that you heard from me with the faith and love that result from union with Christ Jesus. 14 Guard this fine trust by means of the holy spirit, which is dwelling in us.

(Hebrews 2:1) . . .That is why it is necessary for us to pay more than the usual attention to the things we have heard, so that we never drift away.

(1 John 2:24) 24 As for you, what you have heard from the beginning must remain in you.. . .

(2 John 6, 7) . . .This is the commandment, just as you have heard from the beginning, that you should go on walking in it. 7 For many deceivers have gone out into the world, . . .

(Galatians 1:8) 8 However, even if we or an angel out of heaven were to declare to you as good news something beyond the good news we declared to you, let him be accursed.

(2 Corinthians 11:4) . . .For as it is, if someone comes and preaches a Jesus other than the one we preached, or you receive a spirit other than what you received, or good news other than what you accepted, you easily put up with him.

(Hebrews 13:9) . . .Do not be led astray by various and strange teachings, for it is better for the heart to be strengthened by undeserved kindness than by foods, which do not benefit those occupied with them.

Sorry about all the scriptures. Feel free to just pick any one of them. 😊

Also, beyond the basic message about Christ, there are some very important teachings that needed revision, not because the original text of Scripture was ever wrong, but because so many religions had veered away from truth. (Think: Trinity, Hellfire, Halloween, Easter Bunny, eternal soul, all good people go to heaven, God is on our side when we go to war, etc.)

But if all of that had been perfectly noticed in 1919, for example, I don't think Bible Students and Jehovah's Witnesses before us would feel that things had gotten stale, and that we needed to go back and forth on some of these items. It would have been just fine, if all these things had been seen right away, with no need for revisions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Guest
Guest Tom Henry
32 minutes ago, Anna said:

he problem is when we state something as fact one year, and then change it the next. One thing is building on an idea, pretty much the way technology and the medical field develop, but another is completely changing ones mind.

I would have to disagree with that. If a better understanding is found let’s say with an uncommon word, then it would be vital to update something previously that can clarify something known that can be used as an unknown.

Koine Greek has a one letter differential with different outlooks in the English language. Then you have the never ending secular laws that get revised constantly. Modern society changes every minute.

What point would you consider that witnesses need to sit on their hands to satisfy the needs of a few?

29 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Revision is a great thing if we are revising something that was wrong before. Otherwise, there is nothing stale about the original most basic understanding of the Scriptures. Even the most basic message about how Christ Jesus fits into Jehovah's purpose is exciting, comforting, wonderful, and never needed anything to be added or removed from it.

In this sense. Nothing has changed with understanding but simplicity. I will agree, revision is not a bad thing.

30 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

But if all of that had been perfectly noticed in 1919, for example, I don't think Bible Students and Jehovah's Witnesses before us would feel that things had gotten stale, and that we needed to go back and forth on some of these items. It would have been just fine, if all these things had been seen right away, with no need for revisions.

Then we agree, Jehovah's organization is not stale, and always moves forward toward a better understanding of scripture. Too bad, Jesus is not physically here to state, "get behind me Satan" when we as individuals stumble with our own thoughts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
3 hours ago, Tom Henry said:

David Splane doesn't cause anyone to view scripture differently other than how Jesus taught it. That is the point.

If he's honest, he surely admits that he has caused people to view scripture differently than how Jesus taught it. Otherwise why would he give a talk in October 2014 where he said that a very well ingrained method of teaching the scriptures was about to change? And the basic reason for the change was because he said it didn't currently line up with the style that Jesus used when he taught. It was NOT the way of teaching that God approved.

Somewhere between 100 and 200 doctrines changed, based on that talk he gave in 2014. They were changing because, as his theme scripture stated, the Governing Body was to become more faithful and discreet and follow Luke 10:21 which was tied to "how Jesus taught" and which said: "Yes, O Father, because this is the way you approved."

Now if he was changing 100 doctrines to become aligned with the teaching method Jehovah approved, then he must have believed that he was previously NOT following the teaching method that Jesus used: the method that Jehovah approved.

If you don't believe this, then you might as well say that the change was made just so that things wouldn't seem stale.

Of course, based on our history, it's always quite possible that some teachings have been currently been added which cause us to view scriptures differently from the way it was taught in Scripture itself. What caused us, for example, to decide that the "higher powers" or "superior authorities" were God and Christ when Russell and nearly a thousand years of Christian commentary had it right. Surely, you admit that the teaching in 1961 was wrong, and this is the reason it was changed in 1962.

Up until a few weeks ago, we taught that the "locusts" of Joel 2 referred to Jehovah's Witnesses, and just now Brother Splane ( https://www.jw.org/en/news/jw/region/global/2019-Annual-Meeting-Summary/ ) has stated that the locusts refer to God's enemies, just as nearly 100 percent of Christendom's commentaries have been saying for hundreds of years. This teaching was already "clarified" in 1961. ( https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1961883 ) and is still on the website as current in the "Revelation . . . Grand Climax" book. ( https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101988022 ) Again, you might have guessed that Russell had already claimed that the locusts could not be God's people. D543 R362:3 R5527:1 Q23:7

So this is not really clarification at all. Russell teaches that the "superior authorities" are secular not God & Christ. Rutherford "clarifies" this (1929) to say they are God & Christ and not secular. Then in 1962, it is "clarified" again to say that it is secular and not God & Christ.

Same with the locusts. Russell teaches that they cannot be God's people. Then the Watchtower "clarifies" that these locusts are God's people. Then Brother Splane "clarifies" that these locusts are not God's people. So far, the website only says the following.

Brother David Splane clarified our understanding of the prophecy recorded in Joel chapter 2 describing a swarm of locusts. We look forward to studying this clarified understanding when it appears in The Watchtower.

I think it's easy to see that this will clarify that the teaching was wrong up until a few weeks ago. A wrong teaching is always misleading. But it does not necessarily follow that the person teaching it wrong is "mentally diseased" as you said would be true of any who taught something misleading.

4 hours ago, Tom Henry said:

Anyone that misleads by the teaching of Christ and God’s words is mentally diseased, not just apostates.

Several would say that the overlapping generation teaching is wrong the way that Brother Splane explains it. You might say that anyone who teaches that this explanation is wrong is misleading by the teaching of Christ and God's words. But what if Brother Splane, next October, begins to agree that the way he explained it was wrong, and says that a new "clarified" teaching is now going to be taught? It seems like you would say that the persons who were right were misleading, and Brother Splane was not misleading when he was wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Guest
Guest Tom Henry
28 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Of course, based on our history, it's always quite possible that some teachings have been currently been added which cause us to view scriptures differently from the way it was taught in Scripture itself. What caused us, for example, to decide that the "higher powers" or "superior authorities" were God and Christ when Russell and nearly a thousand years of Christian commentary had it right. Surely, you admit that the teaching in 1961 was wrong, and this is the reason it was changed in 1962.

I don’t deal in hypothetical. Anyone can write things to make it seem correct. The good thing, the GB continue to follow the pattern set forth by Christ.

This idea would have to be tested to see if it concurs to an individual’s action. We must not believe, we know better than the other. Bro Splane can explain something a 100 which ways from Sunday and the message still remains the same. Progressiveness is not a failure as indicated.

That’s what revisions are, and will continue to be. Are you aware, the writing department had a free hand back then? Why blame the GB? The GB uses consideration and prayer to see if the written works align with scripture. Can certain past understanding be revised, yes they can. Especially to accommodate what is happening in the world.

Further examination with respect to understanding, the separation of the sheep and goats when Armageddon occurs, if a different application can be ascertained without losing its meaning. Regardless, the good and bad will be separated by Christ and God. There is no value lost unless we start to think beyond scripture to make matters out of our own understanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
12 hours ago, JW Insider said:

But if we take your definition too far we would have to include men like Brother(s) Russell, Rutherford, Fred Franz, Ray Franz, and even David Splane, and many others. Every time there is an adjusted belief, it means that the previous belief is now considered to have been misleading.

If we want to apply @Tom Henry  way of reasoning and logic, and not only in religious matters but in every human activity because life means all and not only religion, we all are lunatics and deeply mentally ill. (In very deep sincerity i would agree with that :))))

Perhaps i would understand Tom Henry if he want to use Bible report of  Eden excommunicate starting point. But that also would mean how religious legacy that WT Society and JW organization want to show how is based on every past "faithful witness for JHVH" individual or group is not possible to establish. Because, in very first moment when God aka Father had cute all spiritual (and literal) "family ties" with Adam and Eve and by that with their children, they been left in all sort of mental problems because their Father didn't want to "pick up telephone and answer on their call even to say Hello and to satisfied their emotional need to just hear His voice and be calmed by that".

You can imagine how such treatment of ignoring (shunning) can cause all sort of emotional difficulties in individual. Such constant stress lead to depression and mental problems. It would  not be surprise how some people ended in "mental house", in literal institution or home made nuthouse.

If it is true how humankind is separated from God because of Adam sin, than we all are crazy. 

WT Society generously contribute to general madness (of flock) because they shows continuity in changing doctrines that was previously been established on Bible, deep study and prayers of faithful men..... and after change was made, new doctrine is also established on same methods and have same name - "the truth". It is logical how inside mental state of suppressed thoughts and emotion about WT Society doctrines can make people to be "mentally ill".   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
7 hours ago, JW Insider said:

They were changing because, as his theme scripture stated, the Governing Body was to become more faithful and discreet

 

7 hours ago, Tom Henry said:

Anyone can write things to make it seem correct.

I would go back to fundamental reasons of that we talking about. No matter do we talking about revision, better understanding, new light, simplicity ......etc. point is this:

In what mental state has been all this individuals who made first, second, third, and so on with numbers, doctrine and then revision of that same doctrine?

Tom said previously how every person who are not in line with Jesus teachings (JW or not JW) is mentally ill. It seems how all authors and all who approved what was written in WT publications had mental issues and that is main reason for revision of doctrines. Just repeating Tom's idea with new wording :))) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
21 hours ago, Anna said:

If we are going to use the man whose name is a type of tree as an example, then we can see he fits the bill quite well as he is completely obsessed, totally consumed with the JW's.

There are actually two men whose name is a type of tree. Both are pseudonyms, the specific trees are different, and one was chosen as a tribute for the other. I think the two have been confused with one another here.

Tree 1 has the hatred for the elders,  but not to my knowledge, any unpleasant family history. Tree 2, the one named in honor of Tree 1, is the one with the dysfunctional family history. I don’t quite remember the specifics, but I don’t think it was anything wildly shocking—perhaps an authoritarian father on his wife’s side, or step father—something like that.

Tree 1 is the one who banned me from his website. Never from Twitter, where I did answer him a few times, and he was without exception (once he discovered that his initial hope that I was about to jump ship was wrong) insulting, taunting, and ridiculing.

Tree 2 blocked me from the moment I first responded—not disrespectfully (though also not half-heartedly)—to his article that was published in a major magazine.

References to both are in “TrueTom vs the Apostates!”

Tree 1: https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2019/01/are-we-looking-at-encouragement-to-commit-insurance-fraud-part-2.html

Tree 2:  https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2019/04/he-has-blocked-me-i-think-that-says-it-all.html

I have a different type of a tree in my front yard—a ginkgo tree. It is one of the few (perhaps only) deciduous trees that come in male and female variety. The male tree is fine. The female stinks in the fall. 

“The sarcotesta [fallen ginko tree fruit] has a strong smell that most people find unpleasant.” - Wikipedia

We call ours a ****ball tree. People think that is crude, but then they stop by for a whiff and wonder what took us so long to name it.

Otherwise, it’s an outwardly beautiful tree.

Why it is MY tree and not one of THEIRS I’ll never know.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

There are actually two men whose name is a type of tree. Both are pseudonyms, the specific trees are different, and one was chosen as a tribute for the other. I think the two have been confused with one another here.

TTH:  "There are actually two men whose name is a type of tree.  Both are pseudonyms, the specific trees are different, and one was chosen as a tribute for the other.  I think the two have been confused with one another here."

I had in mind the Redwood tree, which is related to the Cedar, and both are in the family of the Bald Cypress.  But...why must we speak in code anyway?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites





×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.